Call of the Wild, I apologize for not getting back to you on this with a response. I can only plead that I have been incredibly busy and have had no time to post more than passing comments. Your responses to me deserve more than that and now that I have some free time (finally!) I want to respond in detail.

I had written: One can apply the qualifier "necessary" to anything one imagines. Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is a necessary being. This is the fallacy of stipulation by contrived definition. One can attach any number of contrived qualities to anything one can imagine, but we know that according the primacy of existence principle, the imaginary is not real and does not really exists no matter how we describe it.

You replied: Then we will have to get into modal logic and possible world semantics.

No we don't. I've already told you that I reject the necessary/ contingent dichotomy. I also reject its various offshoots including the analytic/ Synthetic dichotomy. I explained why, because it is based on a flawed theory of concepts. It confuses a concept with its definition. I don't recognize the possibility of other worlds. The only alternative to reality is unreality.

You then wrote: Let me ask you something; this "Sparky the Wonder Unicorn"....is it omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenovlent[sic]...and does it have free will?

Yes, or no?

Of course it does. I freely admit that Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is imaginary. It can have any attributes I imagine it having. Free will? why not. I can imagine Sparky having free will.

I had written: I define the universe as the sum total of what exists. Therefore the universe can not have a cause.

You replied: Non sequitur.

How so? You do not explain. I note that you did not take issue with my defining the universe as the sum total of what exists. The sum total of what exists can not have a cause. This is because a cause presupposes existence. causes only exist within the universe.

I had written: Such a notion would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by asking for a cause outside of existence. This is akin to trying to lift the chair you are sitting in over your head while you are sitting in it. It can't be done.

You replied: Nonsense, based on the fact that we have philsophical [sic] and scientific evidence that the universe did in fact have begin to exist, and therefore, an external cause is absolutely positively necessary.

No. We don't. We have evidence that something expanded and cooled and formed the stars and galaxies. We don't even have a theory about what expanded because our understanding of physics breaks down at that point. The bib bang theory starts shortly after the universe started to expand. Everything prior to that is speculation.

But the very notion of a cause outside of the universe would, as I've pointed out, commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. I note that you have not responded to this charge. You've ignored it. It won't go away by ignoring it. It's still there at the root of your argument.

I notice that you do not define what you mean by the universe. I think it is crucial to do this. I've given my definition -the sum total of what exists-and you have not taken issue with it. So define your terms and be clear.

I had written: I reject the necessary/ contingent dichotomy because it is based on a flawed theory of concepts. It confuses a concept with its definition. A concept, on my view, means the units it subsumes and all of their attributes. Leaving aside the man made, there is no such thing as necessary facts versus contingent facts, there are only the facts which are. Of course man made facts did not have to be, but once they are, they are.

You replied: All possible necessary truths must be actually true...you do agree with that, right?

I agree that all true statements are true. All possible truths are true. I don't recognize the concept of necessary truths. Truth is an aspect of identification. It is epistemological. identification is a volitional process. Truth is the non-contradictory identification of facts. All facts are inherent in the things that exist. So all facts are necessary. They exist whether we identify them or not. But identification is volitional. So there are no necessary truths. All truth is contingent upon the relationship between our identifications and reality.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick

(15-02-2015 08:26 AM)natachan Wrote: What is a supernatural realm? What does it consist of?

It is wholly imaginary; it exists in the minds of humans.

Some years ago I was at the Sistine Chapel. I looked up at the famous painting, at the "creation of Man" portion where Adam's and God's fingers nearly touch... and it occurred to me that Michelangelo was indeed giving us a creation of Man! That 'pod' containing God and the Angels and cherubs? Go look at a human anatomy book, and tell me what that pod looks like.

(15-02-2015 08:26 AM)natachan Wrote: What is a supernatural realm? What does it consist of?

It is wholly imaginary; it exists in the minds of humans.

Some years ago I was at the Sistine Chapel. I looked up at the famous painting, at the "creation of Man" portion where Adam's and God's fingers nearly touch... and it occurred to me that Michelangelo was indeed giving us a creation of Man! That 'pod' containing God and the Angels and cherubs? Go look at a human anatomy book, and tell me what that pod looks like.

It's true that it is all in the imagination. Notice that when people pray, they always, one and all, close their eyes. They are shutting out the real world and retreating to their imaginary fantasy world. I don't believe I've ever seen someone pray with their eyes open in my life.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick

i pray with my eyes open when im at my wifes family's holiday dinners. i feel so ridiculous and uncomfortable, especially when the one doing the prayer starts getting all emotional. i just stare at the floor and imagine the awesome mexican food that is coming my way.

(17-01-2016 06:02 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote: i pray with my eyes open when im at my wifes family's holiday dinners. i feel so ridiculous and uncomfortable, especially when the one doing the prayer starts getting all emotional. i just stare at the floor and imagine the awesome mexican food that is coming my way.

Keeping your head up and your eyes open is key to scouting out worth-while conversation partners for the meal.